The Looniest of the Loony Left

[Bodacious]

Why do you even post in my threads, your remarks get worse with each post you make? Can you show me one example of a commentator lying about someone then that person suing and actually winning. I, unlike you, live in the real world and know this would never work with the multi-million dollar lawyers Fox has. As for your 100 GB bandwdith, no thanks, I have a few TB I'm not currently using.

So saddle up! You think you are so right and all high and mighty, gather up your supporters, sue O'reilly. I bet there are a few lawyers out there who would help you out, too. Write 'ol Ward an e-mail and see what he has to say. If you are right then where can you go wrong? You got TBs of bandwidth so you have plenty of opportunity to get your base together, go for it!

 

[No Limit]

I read what you said No Limit - and have nothing more to add, and think you have added nothing further either.

Ill say it long and loud, march on the street waving placards that say it 'Ward Churchill is a LOOONY!'

I have something to add. You are still a right wing 'loony' in my opinion as you continually dismiss the facts if they don't fit in with what O'Reilly says, and this proves it. So yes, start your right wing crusade on this guy and see how many more scandals you can come up with on him (wow the art thing, what a freakin evil bastard); I don't think any more damage could be done to him.

 

[No Limit]

So saddle up! You think you are so right and all high and mighty, gather up your supporters, sue O'reilly. I bet there are a few lawyers out there who would help you out, too. Write 'ol Ward an e-mail and see what he has to say. If you are right then where can you go wrong? You got TBs of bandwidth so you have plenty of opportunity to get your base together, go for it!

Again, I asked you for an example of where something like this has worked. And don't say commentators don't lie as I can kill you in that argument as I demonstrated many times.

 

[Calanen]

Absinthe - dunno about that, I think that a lot of people would join me. He is a loony. Quote me. And Ill print t-shirts saying it. Testify before Congress.

Btw - I think it is Ward Churchill that looks the most foolish and dumb. Given he may be looking for a new job.

Also - No Limit - keeps saying Im buying whatever Bill O'Reilly says in Fox interviews. I don't know what O'Reilly says. I have never quoted him on here. While he may have said whatever on television, dude, i dont have a television, and I don;t have cable TV. So if you wanna say, Calanen just says what O'Reilly says - unless FOX is transmitting cable broadcasts to me in my sleep, I don't know what he says on his TV show.

 

[No Limit]

unless FOX is transmitting cable broadcasts to me in my sleep, I don't know what he says on his TV show.

They must be as what you quoted from his essay was exactly (word by word with the same omissions) what O'Reilly quoted. Kind of weird.

 

[Absinthe]

Absinthe - dunno about that, I think that a lot of people would join me. He is a loony. Quote me. And Ill print t-shirts saying it. Testify before Congress.

Of course. You say he's a loony, therefore he has to be! All praise the infallible Calanen, who isn't subjected to media bias and is never swayed by emotional responses!

I don't think sarcasm tags are necessary.

 

[Bodacious]

Again, I asked you for an example of where something like this has worked. And don't say commentators don't lie as I can kill you in that argument as I demonstrated many times.

I am unaware of any off the top of my head, but hey, you are right, right? Be a pioneer!

 

[No Limit]

I am unaware of any off the top of my head, but hey, you are right, right? Be a pioneer!

Ok, please just stop. Your posts here don't add anything to the post, instead they are set up to start an intentional flame fest. In all your posts here you haven't addressed any of my points.

 

[Bodacious]

Ok, please just stop. Your posts here don't add anything to the post, instead they are set up to start an intentional flame fest. In all your posts here you haven't addressed any of my points.

Pardon me for being inquisative. I guess standing up for something you believe in is old fashioned. Now-a-days we just whine and cry on a message board when we don't get our way. I guess that because my opinion is different than yours I should just shut my mouth.

 

[kmack]

Pardon me for being inquisative. I guess standing up for something you believe in is old fashioned. Now-a-days we just whine and cry on a message board when we don't get our way. I guess that because my opinion is different than yours I should just shut my mouth.

no, you should shut your mouth about opinons that have nothing to do with the thread you are posting in.

 

[Bodacious]

no, you should shut your mouth about opinons that have nothing to do with the thread you are posting in.

make me.

If what I am doing is so wrong why is my warning level 0?

 

[jondy]

make me.

Grow the **** up, buddy.

 

[burner69]

Okay. Calanen. I'd like you to address this point of mine directly. You can put as much loony left remarks in as you want, I just want you to respond to a few specific points (in bold). I'm interested in your opinion.

Ok

Given that the US has been involved in some pretty f**ked up operations, how can you immediately sweep them under the carpet and say they aren't evil? You say that it is pure evil that happened on 9/11, because innocent people were killed, you say the suicide bombers in Iraq are pure evil because of the innocents they kill, yeah? Then why is it NOT evil when the US is involved in the destruction of civilian water facilities, resulting in half a million dead innocents? Why is that not evil? Why is the US protected from such a term? Is it, as I suspect, simply because it 'just is'. The US is the US, and therefore cannot be evil. You say yourself you're a nationalist, are you unable to accept that your country can do wrong?

Now, assuming that you have accepted that at least some people, particularly those directly involved with these US-caused deaths, can rightly believe the US to be evil (if we can call Al-Quaeda evil for killing several thousand on 9/11, we can safely say they have the right to call the US evil for 500'000 dead) then do you accept that, while you don't like the idea, these people are likely to want to retaliate? That if you were in their shoes you'd want the US to suffer.
Do you then agree that, while Churchill seems quite unsympathetic, he has a valid point. To the enemy, the people working in the WTC and pentegon are people holding up the system that killed so many innocents, are viable targets, just as Eichman was during WW2, despite not killing anybody directly.

Now, will you answer these points? Or will you simply make up an excuse for the US, nullifying all blame of actions, calling terrorists evil, and calling me loony for suggesting what I did in the above text.

I'd be interested in your answer.

 

[jondy]

Loony! Loony! Loony!

*coughs*

 

[Nofuture]

All this anti-American stuff - America is evil. Its just irrational. If you say, I disagree with this foreign policy or whatever fine. But America is not evil, and not even close, nor are its people.

There are lot of people, who disagree with US policy.

Johnson:
Churchill not alone in pointing accusatory finger
http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/churchill_not_alone.html


"And Chalmers Johnson, president of the Japan Policy Research Institute and professor emeritus at the University of California at San Diego, has had no one call for his college position or his life.

The author of 12 books, he is best known for his 2000 book, Blowback: The Cost and Consequences of American Empire, long a best seller overseas, that was barely picked up by Americans until after Sept. 11, when it became a best seller here.

"Blowback" a term invented by the CIA in 1954 to describe possible results from its operation to overthrow the government of Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran, refers to the unintended consequences of American policies, few of which, Chalmers Johnson contends, most Americans even know about.

In the book, he fairly predicts that a Sept. 11 is an inevitability, noting the only question is where it will be carried out."

"The morning of Sept. 11, 2001, he actually believed the horrors were the work of Chileans. Sept. 11, he noted, is the date in 1973 when the U.S. sponsored the overthrow of the elected government of Salvador Allende, a date no Chilean, he says, has ever forgotten.

It could, too, have been Greeks, Okinawans, any number of African nationals, Argentines, Brazilians - you name it, he said. That the attacks were mostly carried out by Saudis, he said, was not a surprise. Blowback.

The problem, he said, is "when retaliation comes, Americans do not have the context to see why it happens. What it is not is a clash of civilizations. It is irrelevant to what we are talking about here."

In Indonesia, for example, a country where he has lived and visits frequently, 80 percent of the people there are now demonstrably anti-American.

"They openly wear Osama bin Laden T-shirts. In the years before George W. Bush, 80 percent were pro-American."

What happened?

"Every red light was flashing," Chalmers Johnson said. "The world knew it. Yet here in America, we re-elected George Bush. We simply are asking for it.

"All of us, with that election, endorsed preventative war and more war, torture, prisoner-abuse, the flaunting of Geneva Convention rules, the backing out of treaties when it suits us, the rest of the world be damned. It is one bad thing after another .

"The belief out there is the U.S. is unfair. And that is warranted."

There are three things the U.S. can do to solve it all, where terrorism "will become only the concern of local police chiefs. Not that it ever will happen," Chalmers Johnson said.

Our uncritical and unflinching support of Israel, our dependence on Middle Eastern oil and this nation's unchecked militarism, he said reciting Roman history, is "our Rubicon, and we have crossed it.

"I am not certain it can be reversed," he said. "I see clearly what I call the short, happy life of the American republic.

"We have undercut the separation of powers. We have an imperial presidency that does what it wants, that relies on secrecy more than ever, combined with a Congress that doesn't perform.

"The entire political system today doesn't perform. As a result, Nov. 2, 2004, will be a date that ultimately will be better remembered in this country than Sept. 11, 2001."

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Yep.

Given that the US has been involved in some pretty f**ked up operations, how can you immediately sweep them under the carpet and say they aren't evil?

morally objectionable behavior
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn


that which causes harm or destruction or misfortune; "the evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones"- Shakespeare
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn


the quality of being morally wrong in principle or practice; "attempts to explain the origin of evil in the world"
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

A country cannot be exclusively evil -- to patronize that is irresponsibility to the words intended association. However, you can patronize evil, a quality of humanity, to a human. Bush has, or had evil intentions? Fair statement. The chair is evil -- awkward, paranoid, and not proveable. How do you know its evil, without knowing the other chairs first?

A whole country is evil -- every baby being born and old man passing, evil? NO. [It's especially a double-no when we consider you've not provided a legitimate and personal investigation of every person within the United States, enough to make such remarks as a whole country can be -OR- is evil. A Triple-no, if we account for your finger-pointing which guides itself at a worldly wrong. Quad-no's, if we understand you've not investigated every person and every country, to provide an example from which you gathered its simply just the United States that is evil.]

The United States is not "evil" -- it cannot be defined as such because the definition itself only applies to a humanity and persona. I should make your words more clear; that you believe not everyone in the United States has evil qualities, but the people behind the action in a Global court, (including persons from the United States who provided for such) had evil intentions.

You say that it is pure evil that happened on 9/11, because innocent people were killed, you say the suicide bombers in Iraq are pure evil because of the innocents they kill, yeah? Then why is it NOT evil when the US is involved in the destruction of civilian water facilities, resulting in half a million dead innocents?

Burner, perhaps it is. Perhaps they're deaths were horrible and unjustified -- yet you do realize that the United States is only but one force involved in the whole UN, right? You do realize that it was the UN that not only "allowed" for such actions to take place, but it was the UN who voted in favor of it, provided the force to it, and laid down the times and locations from which the force would leave and carry out there tasks?

Of course you did ... I mean, how could you NOT?

Its practicaly the most important point that was made during this whole debate -- a world-court voted and supported the action against Saddam's regime. ... would you now, in your consesus for misconception state that the world is evil?

In hoping that you know better for both of the situations, you would'nt dare that again.

(if we can call Al-Quaeda evil for killing several thousand on 9/11, we can safely say they have the right to call the US evil for 500'000 dead)

Of course, as I've defined, both arguements would be inherently flawed due to two reasons:

• Definition.
  -AND-
• Situation.

Situations make things entirely different -- the attack on US soil was founded on the idea of killing many and scaring many more.

Situations make things entirely different -- the attack on the Iraqi Treatment plant, justified by a world court, was punishment against Saddam's regime for not decreasing it's militarism against nearby neighbors in the middle-east.

The outcome of Al-Qaeda's attack? Horrible. As goaled.
The outcome of the worlds choice against Saddam? Horrible. As not intended, it affected the Civilians more then Saddam's politics.

To the enemy, the people working in the WTC and pentegon are people holding up the system that killed so many innocents, are viable targets, just as Eichman was during WW2, despite not killing anybody directly.

They did'nt kill anyone period. He still has yet to prove that.

Or will you simply make up an excuse for the US, nullifying all blame of actions, calling terrorists evil, and calling me loony for suggesting what I did in the above text.

Will you own up for making excuses about Saddams regime, nullifying all blame of actions, calling the US evil, and calling me a conservative nutjob for suggesting what I did in the above text?

I'd be interested in your answers.

Loony! Loony! Loony!

You said it -- not us! :thumbs:

 

[burner69]

A country cannot be exclusively evil -- to patronize that is irresponsibility to the words intended association. However, you can patronize evil, a quality of humanity, to a human. Bush has, or had evil intentions? Fair statement. The chair is evil -- awkward, paranoid, and not proveable. How do you know its evil, without knowing the other chairs first?

I never meant that to become the message at all. Every American I've met in person, and most I've met on here have been quality people. When I refer to the US, I refer to the government that runs it.

A whole country is evil -- every baby being born and old man passing, evil? NO. [It's especially a double-no when we consider you've not provided a legitimate and personal investigation of every person within the United States, enough to make such remarks as a whole country can be -OR- is evil. A Triple-no, if we account for your finger-pointing which guides itself at a worldly wrong. Quad-no's, if we understand you've not investigated every person and every country, to provide an example from which you gathered its simply just the United States that is evil.]

Taken this point quite far Kerb... hmm... but I agree totally with what you're saying. However, a large portion of the population are ignorant to what is going on; as was demonstrated during 9/11 when everyone (not just in America) accepted the motive of the attacks to being down to "evil do-ers" "jealousy of Freedom".

The United States is not "evil" -- it cannot be defined as such because the definition itself only applies to a humanity and persona. I should make your words more clear; that you believe not everyone in the United States has evil qualities, but the people behind the action in a Global court, (including persons from the United States who provided for such) had evil intentions.

I don't tend to use the word evil. However if we're calling one group of people evil, we must then call actions of other people evil if they result in similar or worse outcomes.

Burner, perhaps it is. Perhaps they're deaths were horrible and unjustified -- yet you do realize that the United States is only but one force involved in the whole UN, right? You do realize that it was the UN that not only "allowed" for such actions to take place, but it was the UN who voted in favor of it, provided the force to it, and laid down the times and locations from which the force would leave and carry out there tasks?

I'm more than aware of that. It was, however, US bombs and soliders who did the bombing; although they were just carrying out orders from the UN on high, I admit.
Stern will also point you in the direction, however, of other smaller-scale activities carried out over the Gulf war whereby certain places were targetted that resulted in disease and consequently civilian death. Not saying the US is the only country to ever do it though, but it is the one labelling others "evil-doers" when it's own actions have killed far more innocents.

Of course you did ... I mean, how could you NOT?

Being a loony perhaps? I dunno.

Its practicaly the most important point that was made during this whole debate -- a world-court voted and supported the action against Saddam's regime. ... would you now, in your consesus for misconception state that the world is evil?

Hmmm.. well.. human's are nasty little creatures.....
No, the world court in no way represents the world, and you're well aware of that I think. If asked; should we put in jepordy more than half a million people's lives in an attempt to get them, unarmed, to overthrow a heavily armed and protected dictator... most would pick the 'do it yourself and stop risking innocent people's lives' box.

In hoping that you know better for both of the situations, you would'nt dare that again.

Of course, as I've defined, both arguements would be inherently flawed due to two reasons:

• Definition.
  -AND-
• Situation.

Situations make things entirely different -- the attack on US soil was founded on the idea of killing many and scaring many more.

Situations make things entirely different -- the attack on the Iraqi Treatment plant, justified by a world court, was punishment against Saddam's regime for not decreasing it's militarism against nearby neighbors in the middle-east.

No, you've just altered the perception here to suit yourself.
The attack on US soil was founded on the idea of killing many and scaring many more... as punishment against Bush's regime for not decreasing it's militarism against foreign countries, as punishment for being the key figure in the killing of half a million innocents, and for generally doing nasty naughty things.

The attack on Iraqi Treatment plant, justified by a world court, killed many many many people who didn't have a gnat's chuff to do with Saddam and his regime, which technically constitutes genocide.

The outcome of Al-Qaeda's attack? Horrible. As goaled.
The outcome of the worlds choice against Saddam? Horrible. As not intended, it affected the Civilians more then Saddam's politics.

Erm... no... they knew it would kill thousands of children, they checked it out, and concluded that a lot of innocents would die. They knew what would happen....
Are you really saying here... really, that 9/11 was evil because it was planned to be as such, but the UN/US/West are not because they probably fouled up and didn't expect it to go as it did??!?! Seriously? Well, by your argument 9/11 could have been unintended, maybe they thought only government officials and soliders would be around the WTC and on the planes eh?
If you blow up civilian water treatent facilities, civilians died. They knew about it and went ahead. Horrible, and intended.

They did'nt kill anyone period. He still has yet to prove that.

Sorry, what?

Will you own up for making excuses about Saddams regime, nullifying all blame of actions, calling the US evil, and calling me a conservative nutjob for suggesting what I did in the above text?

Saddam was a f**k up. No excuses.
If we're using the term evil, then yes, the US government, as it voted for, helped organise, and carried out the bombings that resulted in hundreds of thousands of dead innocents, is evil.
If we're calling Saddam evil for using chemical weapons on his own people, we have to incur some of this blame, we sold them to him, even after the gassing of 5000 of his own people. OK, so its not as bad, I mean, how were we to know he wanted to do it again eh? In this case maybe we're just a bit naughty.
If Saddam is evil for torturing prisoners, then old Donald Rumsfeld is evil. Innocents are coming out of Guantanimo after having being tortured, and held without trial, and even seeing people get killed....

I'd be interested in your answers.

Don't do drugs kids.

You said it -- not us! :thumbs:

You're cool

 

[Apos]

@Apos: Whatever your opinion is, there is simply less violence when conservatives get together, and more violence when liberals get together.

Whatever. You've obviously never been anywhere near an abortion clinic.

You so rarely hear of conservatives using "disruptive" means.

You mean, you so rarely hear about it since you only hear things that fit your cramped worldview.

Every Iraq/Bush protest I've been to (and this is in Seattle) has never been much about the issue, more an atmosphere of violence.

Sure, and we have to take the word of a self-proclaimed raging anti-liberal who sees nothing but evil from each and every one and who lyingly accuses other people of doing things they didn't do?

Theres always police there, and people always get arrested. Blame it on "anarchists" if you want, but that it so pathetic to blame your own hypocritical violence on other, greater liberals.

Only someone with very low character would blame the violence commited by one group on other group, just to score cheap rhetorical points.

 

[Calanen]

Okay. Calanen. I'd like you to address this point of mine directly. You can put as much loony left remarks in as you want, I just want you to respond to a few specific points (in bold). I'm interested in your opinion.

Ok

Given that the US has been involved in some pretty f**ked up operations, how can you immediately sweep them under the carpet and say they aren't evil? You say that it is pure evil that happened on 9/11, because innocent people were killed, you say the suicide bombers in Iraq are pure evil because of the innocents they kill, yeah? Then why is it NOT evil when the US is involved in the destruction of civilian water facilities, resulting in half a million dead innocents? Why is that not evil? Why is the US protected from such a term? Is it, as I suspect, simply because it 'just is'. The US is the US, and therefore cannot be evil. You say yourself you're a nationalist, are you unable to accept that your country can do wrong?

Its not my country - but I'd consider it an allied nation. And if the USA had let me stay, I would have gladly sworn allegiance to it. And still will, even though they kicked me out. Would I take up arms to defend the USA or American troops. Gladly. Has America and its govt done evil things? Sure. Do I believe that Osama Bin Laden and his band of terrorists, are pursuing a legitimate foreign policy in retaliation for what was allegedly done to them? No. These guys just want to see the end of the USA and all Western nations. They want a theocratic state. And they want us all dead. Osama Bin Laden blames Palestine, Iraq, US foreign policy or whatever. But it does not matter to these guys. They want a theocratic Muslim state, all non-believers must die, and that includes the euroliberals and loony left that defend them. They are laughing at us, for the fact that we have people in our society who promote their causes for free - so we fight on two fronts them as the enemy without, and the enemy withing being the armchair liberal.

I know Captain Stern has said that water treatment facilities were bombed during the Gulf War. I don't doubt that. How many people were killed from it? I do not know. I've tried to look into it - but the numbers vary from a lot to a little. I don't know which ones are correct.

Would I have made the decision to destroy water treatment facilities in Iraq? I cannot be sure. Presumably the military believed that it would make their military or infrastructure collapse. Make no mistake, war is a dirty business, and if you fight it with one hand tied behind your balls scared to fire or drop anything in case you are criticised, you will lose, and the enemy will win. Did they need to hit the water treatment plants? I don't know.

Now lets say that the US destroyed a water treatment plant, and it caused the deaths of 500,000. I don't know if thats the case. And if som1 can point me to some definitive statistics that were gathered I'd appreciate it. To try and say that the 19 Saudi hijackers, were somehow the revenge squad for this is ridiculous. These guys were from Al Quada. They hated Saddam. They called him an infidel many times. They are Wahabi muslims, and have no love for Sunnis So I think what you are trying to do, is point to anywhere America has done anything which is open to criticism, and say, see, when these guys attacked it was self defence. Very tenuous link. And I thought all the left were saying that Al Quada had nothing to do with Iraq?

Now, assuming that you have accepted that at least some people, particularly those directly involved with these US-caused deaths, can rightly believe the US to be evil (if we can call Al-Quaeda evil for killing several thousand on 9/11, we can safely say they have the right to call the US evil for 500'000 dead) then do you accept that, while you don't like the idea, these people are likely to want to retaliate? That if you were in their shoes you'd want the US to suffer.

No I don't follow this. I don't accept this. And the USA is not an evil nation. It gives billions in charity every year to people all around the world. It sent its 5th Fleet to Indonesia straight away to help in the Tsunami aid. And thats a Muslim nation. Where's Chinas navy to help? What about all the Muslim brothers? Where is there navy? Pretty quick to want to criticise the US. But the US is a benevolent superpower. And make no mistake, if the lights go out on the USA, they will go out on the whole world. And like the fall of the Roman Empire, the world will be plunged into maybe hundreds of years of darkness. If the USA does ever fall, you will have maybe Russia, but more likely China (now theres a country I will call evil happily) in charge. You'll be wishing the USA was still around, believe me when that happens.

Do you then agree that, while Churchill seems quite unsympathetic, he has a valid point. To the enemy, the people working in the WTC and pentegon are people holding up the system that killed so many innocents, are viable targets, just as Eichman was during WW2, despite not killing anybody directly.

No I do not agree. This is silly stuff. Eichmann was an SS Oberstumphenfuhrer (apologies to Germans for spelling) in charge of perhaps the execution of 3 million people. People who were deliberately, rounded up, and put on trains, and gassed. I think Saddam, while not that bad, is a better candidate for being like Eichmann. Eichmann was a war criminal. The USA has done nothing like this. Not its government. Not its people. And certainly not the guys and girls who emptied the trash, worked in the restaurants, or at the reception desks in the WTC. His analysis, on every level, is loony and nutjob realm. It is disappointing that he has generated so much 'talk'. He is not worthy of the mental rental.

In addition, I saw a photo of Ward Churchill wearing a beret, dark glasses and carrying an AK47. Who does this guy think he is? And more importantly, when does the Ward Churchill counterstrike mod come out?

 

[No Limit]

No I do not agree. This is silly stuff. Eichmann was an SS Oberstumphenfuhrer (apologies to Germans for spelling) in charge of perhaps the execution of 3 million people. People who were deliberately, rounded up, and put on trains, and gassed. I think Saddam, while not that bad, is a better candidate for being like Eichmann. Eichmann was a war criminal. The USA has done nothing like this. Not its government. Not its people. And certainly not the guys and girls who emptied the trash, worked in the restaurants, or at the reception desks in the WTC. His analysis, on every level, is loony and nutjob realm. It is disappointing that he has generated so much 'talk'. He is not worthy of the mental rental.

What I bolded in your quote is exactly the point Churchill is making. Eichmann was a war criminal; so is the US government in many ways. Eichmann never killed any jew himself but he was the one that enabled Hitler to do it. This is what Churchill is saying about the CIA and the Pentagon; they enable our government to go and bomb civillians in other countries.

The second bold part I pointed out to show show brainwashed the right wing is and the fact they won't listen to facts. This is the 3rd time now I have to point out to you he was only talking about the government officials working at the CIA and Pentagon.

In addition, I saw a photo of Ward Churchill wearing a beret, dark glasses and carrying an AK47. Who does this guy think he is? And more importantly, when does the Ward Churchill counterstrike mod come out?

Didn't someone just say the right doesn't go out and attack people's character? What the hell does this have to do with anything? You do know that this guy was in Vietnam right? Would you like me to point you to about a 1000 pictures of Vietnam veterans wearing similar?

 

[CptStern]

In addition, I saw a photo of Ward Churchill wearing a beret, dark glasses and carrying an AK47. Who does this guy think he is?"

bah that can describe many of the americans here, I think it's an unspoken american national pastime (posing with your beloved gun) ...didnt bodacious recently post a pic of himself pointing a gun at the camera?

 

[No Limit]

bah that can describe many of the americans here, I think it's an unspoken national pastime (psoing with your beloved gun) ...didnt bodacious recently post a pic of himself pointing a gun at the camera?

Don't even bother. When the right supports gun laws they yell "you won't pry this gun from my dead hands". But when they suddenly see someone on the left with a gun they can somehow twist it around to make them look 'loony' even if the guy was in Vietnam. Funny how that works.

I am personally against gun control BTW, simply pointing out the hypocracy in that statement.

 

[CptStern]

conservative nutjob with gun = american hero

liberal nutjob with gun = shoot on sight

 

[K e r b e r o s]

I never meant that to become the message at all. Every American I've met in person, and most I've met on here have been quality people. When I refer to the US, I refer to the government that runs it.

Thanks. You want to know I even bothered commenting on the "US is evil thing", even though I understood you ment our Government?

Because not many people, are smart enough to see what you meant -- it seems sometimes that I'm not that smart, but I knew.

However, a large portion of the population are ignorant to what is going on; as was demonstrated during 9/11 when everyone (not just in America) accepted the motive of the attacks to being down to "evil do-ers" "jealousy of Freedom".

However ignorant it may have been, those were our only ploys because for years and years we had not understood what it was like to be attacked on our soil.

Oh, and most do have evil intentions, and some also are jealousy of freedom -- but placing your pride and religion first can often be the best screen so nobody knows that point.

So when you see "terrorists" proclaiming where evil-doer apostates, then maybe you'll also understand that since 9/11 some terrorists and american people share a lot in common.

(Just in terms of Psyche)

Not saying the US is the only country to ever do it though, but it is the one labelling others "evil-doers" when it's own actions have killed far more innocents.

So, thats what this is about? Alright. I'll own up to it.

What else has had evil intentions besides the United States?

No, you've just altered the perception here to suit yourself.

Of course our perceptions might seem altered to one another -- were practicaly speaking from opposite ends of the line for this debate, and we share great differences in opinion.

Our perceptions of "evil, or having evil intentions" are the same however, just aimed at different prospects of modern society.

The attack on Iraqi Treatment plant, justified by a world court, killed many many many people who didn't have a gnat's chuff to do with Saddam and his regime, which technically constitutes genocide.

I'm still argueing that it was'nt the context of genocide so much it was the context of creating pressure against Saddam.

Now, it killed a lot of people -- its sad, yes, and I'll admit that. However, most of them died from disease, starvations, and deprivation - something Saddam also could've prevented.

That'd be like if Canada aced a Water Treatment plant near Fayetteville (a town here), and Bush did nothing to fix the problem and people died.

I would be just as mad at Bush as I would be Canada.

(in this example)

Sorry, what?

Our little Eichman professor has yet to prove all of those who died killed anyone directly or indirectly.

They were working in an office building, eating fast food, doing trade and news reporters -- then came home to their families once they were finished.

Thats not killing anyone.

Whatever. You've obviously never been anywhere near an abortion clinic.

I have ... WHOA-HO-HO, slow down their Apos! Before insulting and back handing me with a, "and that just proves you were'nt there; that just proves your stupid; that just proves your not worth my time" statement, you forget -- our highschool took a field trip down to one! Talk about political statements!

You mean, you so rarely hear about it since you only hear things that fit your cramped worldview.

Hey! The pots calling the kettle black!

Sure, and we have to take the word of a self-proclaimed raging anti-liberal who sees nothing but evil from each and every one and who lyingly accuses other people of doing things they didn't do?

Sure, and we have to take the word of a self-proclaimed angsty athesitical raging liberal who see's nothing but evil from each and every one and who lyingly accuses other people of doing things they did'nt do?

I mean, fits you perfectly! :thumbs:

Only someone with very low character would blame the violence commited by one group on other group, just to score cheap rhetorical points.

Like you just did with this post of yours ... Ooo, ouch Apos! You got a lot of rhetorical points, and Bonus "Angry" points too for being hypocritical to your own statement. Tsk Tsk Tsk ...

 

[No Limit]

Our little Eichman professor has yet to prove all of those who died killed anyone directly or indirectly.

They were working in an office building, eating fast food, doing trade and news reporters -- then came home to their families once they were finished.

Thats not killing anyone.

:upstare: :upstare: 4th time I have to point out this is a lie, again, he was talking about the CIA and military personel working at the pentagon and WTC, not the civillians. They might not have killed anyone directly just like Eichman never did. What the hell is wrong with the right wing these days, I gurantee you I will have to point this out many more times; they just don't want to accept facts.

 

[gh0st]

Whatever. You've obviously never been anywhere near an abortion clinic.

No I sure have not. Ive never put myself in the position to require visiting one. Im very sorry if you have. You compare a splinter ultra conservative group with the liberal norm? Get real.

You mean, you so rarely hear about it since you only hear things that fit your cramped worldview.

Things can be true even if they dont fit your party lines Apos, things arent so rigid. This just so happens to be true, and its within my worldview. So we all win (except you, of course, who are wrong and lose the argument because all you can cite are abortion clinic bombings which actually dont happen nearly as much as you raging liberals protest against something and end up killing someone innocent)

Sure, and we have to take the word of a self-proclaimed raging anti-liberal who sees nothing but evil from each and every one and who lyingly accuses other people of doing things they didn't do?

Self-proclaimed? I've never proclaimed anything. You are applying a stereotype to me, one which fits your cramped world view. I'm not accusing anyone either, you are taking things really personally kiddo, lighten up. Go burn down an oil rig or something.

Only someone with very low character would blame the violence commited by one group on other group, just to score cheap rhetorical points.

And you just blamed liberal violence on fictional 'anarchists'? You're scoring the cheap rhetorical points for me slugger, keep it up.

:upstare: :upstare: 4th time I have to point out this is a lie, again, he was talking about the CIA and military personel working at the pentagon and WTC, not the civillians. They might not have killed anyone directly just like Eichman never did. What the hell is wrong with the right wing these days, I gurantee you I will have to point this out many more times; they just don't want to accept facts.

Theres an army recruiter in my school, does that make it a viable target for islamo-fascist headcutters? No.

Sometimes I go on ride alongs with our police. Is that a viable target for headcutters?

Theres an FBI field office a few miles from me in the same building where a daycare is. Is that a viable target? If we hit buildings while were attacking terrorists where innocents live, I can accept that as collateral damage, that happens in war and fighting. But 9/11 was blatantly attacking civilians at work, which is wrong. Why do you idiots try and justify this imbeciles opinion? No matter, he's going to get canned by the University anyway, the sooner the better.

 

[Calanen]

4th time I have to point out this is a lie, again, he was talking about the CIA and military personel working at the pentagon and WTC, not the civillians. They might not have killed anyone directly just like Eichman never did. What the hell is wrong with the right wing these days, I gurantee you I will have to point this out many more times; they just don't want to accept facts.

I am sorry, but if any1 is lying or at least trying the spin out it is you no limit. THIS IS NOT WHAT HE SAID. Let's read what we said, again. Read it a few times. Let it sink in.

'More likely, it was because they were too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones, arranging power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated, conveniently out of sight, mind and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting flesh of infants. If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it. '

Now, no matter how much you spin it - the CIA are not stereotyped as 1) arranging stock transactions 2) braying importantly on mobile phones 3) organising power lunches. He was clearly talking about the office workers in the WTC. And you can't spin, deny, backpeddle your way out of it for him No Limit. And especially not by calling me a liar.

Those are his words. Not mine. I quoted the relevant passage. I then put the link up to the whole loony essay. And now you are trying to say, see he said the CIA and Pentagon are Eichmanns, and thats OK, not the office workers...... that is baloney. Read it again No Limit. Write it in magic marker on your forehead. And don't ever call me a liar. Especially when you are wrong.

 

[bliink]

Why do you idiots try and justify this imbeciles opinion?

ohh.. thats really going to lead to productive discussion :dozey:

 

[gh0st]

Does productive discussion ever go on here? I find it shocking that people believe that he's somehow right. So in my shocked state of mind I called them idiots. Because they are. The truth hurts sometimes.

 

[Absinthe]

Does productive discussion ever go on here? I find it shocking that people believe that he's somehow right. So in my shocked state of mind I called them idiots. Because they are. The truth hurts sometimes.

Wrong, asshole.

I don't think you'd find many people here marching along in one of his parades. I don't agree with what he says. But I still feel that the media has demonized him into something he is not.

I won't bother touching your definition of the "liberal norm", since that ignorance is obviously too ingrained into your psyche.

 

[gh0st]

Wrong, asshole.

I don't think you'd find many people here marching along in one of his parades. I don't agree with what he says. But I still feel that the media has demonized him into something he is not.

I won't bother touching your definition of the "liberal norm", since that ignorance is obviously too ingrained into your psyche.

Asshole... asshole? Like the part of your body where poop comes out? Back to my pills. I think personally attacking another user is a violation of the rules here, I'd appreciate you being a little more courteous.

But apparantly this asshole isnt so stupid, since youve just agreed with me. You dont like what he says, neither do I. You feel the media has demonized him? Well, they have, but he's done a lot of the demonizing himself and its his problem he's where he's at right now.

No, touch my definition of liberal norm. Disagree with the fact that liberals are more violent than conservatives... PLEASE disagree. Hopefully a smart guy like you can surely use that big old noggin of yours and see the truth for what it is.

 

[Calanen]

Is the average liberal activist more violent than the average right wing activist? Hmm - I don't know about that. It depends whether you extend the right wing further than the Republican party, and over into Loony Right territory with the KKK, and other hate groups. Or you include as part of the left people like ELF, the Environmental Liberation Front. And btw Elf you bastards, after being awake for 3 days doing the bar exam in cali, and on the night I finished, you burnt down the apartment complex behind me in San Diego and disturbed my sleep for another night! Even though police helicopters flew overhead, and the firebrigade bashed on my door - i was not moving. I dont think I could move anymore. Break down the door and carry me away - if you want to, I thought, but I was literally, completely and totally exhausted, and only vaguely aware of what was happening. I wasn't sure either whether I was dreaming the whole thing, and only realised the next day that it was real.....

But in my opinion, would people who are considered to be 'mainstream' liberals be involved in violent protest than mainstream republicans? My guess would be, 'Yes'. I don't know though.

 

[Korgoth]

Asshole... asshole? Like the part of your body where poop comes out? Back to my pills. I think personally attacking another user is a violation of the rules here, I'd appreciate you being a little more courteous.

But apparantly this asshole isnt so stupid, since youve just agreed with me. You dont like what he says, neither do I. You feel the media has demonized him? Well, they have, but he's done a lot of the demonizing himself and its his problem he's where he's at right now.

No, touch my definition of liberal norm. Disagree with the fact that liberals are more violent than conservatives... PLEASE disagree. Hopefully a smart guy like you can surely use that big old noggin of yours and see the truth for what it is.

You just called a whole group of people idiots, not even five posts up. You have no right to cry foul over name calling or personal attacks. Thats what i love about you guys, you claim the high moral ground, you mess up first then blame it on someone else. Learn to take responsibility, that is the main downfall of the whole right wing conservative ideology.

I agree %100 with what absinthe said, and I also don't believe you would see any one of us marching in one of this guys rallies, or agreeing with him on all of his issues.

He and his words have been blown out of proportion. And people are trying to demonize and make people feel hatred and anger towards this guy, for what? His opinion.. Let him have, and get on with your life. Just because he doesn't see it you way.

And you claim liberals are more violent? Then you would be the first to call us tree huggin hippies, or commie pussies if the debate was who was the stongest. You're so bass ackwards it isn't funny. Of course the liberals are the violent ones, I mean we did start three wars (war on terror, afghanistan, iraq) during a four year period right? Oh.. wait.

 

[Calanen]

Interestingly, academics at the Colorado University were asked to sign a petititon to support Ward Churchill. Only 9% did.

 

[johnmedz]

Interestingly, academics at the Colorado University were asked to sign a petititon to support Ward Churchill. Only 9% did.

that number actually seems rather high to me considering the excessive amount of negative media attention they are giving this guy. He may have said some things that were offensive to some people, and he will be repremanded for it. It's as simple as that. you are allowed to have free speech but he is a teacher, being paid to work under their rules and regulations. I'm surprised anybody would sign their name to support this guy so 9% of a university is not that low.

 

[Calanen]

I mean we did start three wars (war on terror, afghanistan, iraq) during a four year period right? Oh.. wait.

And here I thought it was the terrorists that started the wars (at least the first two....and Saddam started the second one by playing silly buggers with weapons inspectors and breaking every term of his ceasefire agreement with the US for like 10 years.

silly me. I must be watching too much FOX - oh wait, I don't have a tv or cable. Must be that new FOX thought control device........

 

[Calanen]

Bliink:

hah... the libs are hardly nationalist.. nationalism is probably at an all time low in australia atm

I disagree about the liberals not being nationalist. I do agree that nationalism in Australia is low, because there are too many people who want to destroy our culture and sense of identity and make some big nothing culture in the name of multi-culturalism.

 

[Korgoth]

No my friend, the war against al qaeda and the hunt for bin laden are very much justified, and also very different from the broader war on terror. The war in afghanistan is a byproduct of our hunt for bin laden, which much like the hunt for WMD in Iraq has turned out to be very fruitless. The war in Iraq I would hardly say was started by Saddam. We were the aggressors, we made claims, we placed sanctions that we knew he would break, and we gave reason after reason then we finally went in.... And look where we are today.

I will not get into another debate on the merits of the iraq war, with you or anyone else on this board, because its very much akin to arguing with a brick wall. Only the wall is more stimulating.

And bar my lapse there, we didn't start all three, but we definatly are involved, whether it be by our aggression, or this administrations failure to heed the warnins (i believe the name of the report was, bin laden determined to attack within the US. which spoke of bin laden wanting to use airlplanes as weapons, and how eagerly he and his groups wanted to hijack american airliners. And lets not even step into the richard clark territory, but of course i'd hate to take you there, it'd hurt your feelings to learn just how incompetant this administration really is)

forgive spelling/grammar i'm in a hurry.

 

[Absinthe]

Asshole... asshole? Like the part of your body where poop comes out? Back to my pills. I think personally attacking another user is a violation of the rules here, I'd appreciate you being a little more courteous.

You aren't in a position to talk about courtesy.

So in my shocked state of mind I called them idiots. Because they are. The truth hurts sometimes.

But apparantly this asshole isnt so stupid, since youve just agreed with me. You dont like what he says, neither do I. You feel the media has demonized him? Well, they have, but he's done a lot of the demonizing himself and its his problem he's where he's at right now.

I disagreed with your statement that we're idiots.

No, touch my definition of liberal norm. Disagree with the fact that liberals are more violent than conservatives... PLEASE disagree. Hopefully a smart guy like you can surely use that big old noggin of yours and see the truth for what it is.

Your assertion that liberals are more violent than conservatives is completely bogus. For every violent protest you bring up, I could bring up an attack on an abortion clinic. For every instance you bring up of a liberal flipping the bird or yelling a nasty name, I could bring up similar incidents that occur with gay marriages or funerals. For every liberal crime you bring up, I could bring up a conservative crime.

There are no statistics that prove that liberals are more violent than conservatives. And even if there were, you most certainly wouldn't get numbers pointing to the conclusion that violent behavior is the liberal norm.

To say that the liberal mindset is more aggressive is just as ignorant as saying the same for the conservative mindset, and all it does is fuel partisan politics.

 

[Apos]

No I sure have not. Ive never put myself in the position to require visiting one. Im very sorry if you have. You compare a splinter ultra conservative group with the liberal norm? Get real.

What's splinter about pro-life? What's splinter about anti-gay groups? If you can slander all liberals by getting all huffy about a bunch of high-school kids in a park marching against war and getting out of hand, why is turnabout not fair play?

Things can be true even if they dont fit your party lines Apos, things arent so rigid. This just so happens to be true, and its within my worldview.

Again, if you are only going to pay attention to what you want to hear, then of course your worldview is going to be reinforced. If you listen to nothing but an echo-chamber of your own prejeduces, then of course you'll be filled with irrational hatred.

So we all win (except you, of course, who are wrong and lose the argument because all you can cite are abortion clinic bombings which actually dont happen nearly as much as you raging liberals protest against something and end up killing someone innocent)

Abortion clinic bombings are only the most violent of a much more regular process of ongoing violence and intimidation.

Self-proclaimed? I've never proclaimed anything. You are applying a stereotype to me, one which fits your cramped world view. I'm not accusing anyone either, you are taking things really personally kiddo, lighten up. Go burn down an oil rig or something.

How this for light: you are a demonstrable liar of low character who makes gross generalizations about groups of people. Anyone that could lie through their teeth about not outright saying that _I_ had done all sorts of things I haven't has serious, and obvious problems.

And you just blamed liberal violence on fictional 'anarchists'? You're scoring the cheap rhetorical points for me slugger, keep it up.

It's a fact that the major elements of violence at the WTO protests were caused by black-hooded anarchist groups. There's nothing fictional about it. Only in your right-wing fantasyland.